A free market is a competitive market where prices are determined by supply and demand.[citation needed] A free-market economy is one within which all markets are unregulated by any parties other than market participants.[citation needed] Free markets contrast sharply with controlled markets or regulated markets, in which governments more actively regulate prices and/or supplies, directly or indirectly.[1] In its purest form, the government plays a neutral role in its administration and legislation of economic activity, neither limiting it (by regulating industries or protecting them from internal/external market pressures) nor actively promoting it (by owning economic interests or offering subsidies to businesses or R&D). A free market is not to be confused with a perfect market where individuals have perfect information and there is perfect competition.
That's dumb, then there will just be corporations of corporations, etc. All that would be is an obstacle for people to waste effort people getting around.
The plants around Chernobyl adapted... Heat shock proteins are there for a reason. It is probably far cheaper (energetically) to adapt to warmer temperatures than colder.
I would say the "tea party", Republican, (also some OWS) argument is similarly a bit more nuanced than portrayed. It isn't that the wealthy shouldn't give something back to society. It is that governments are commonly corrupt, make inefficient economic decisions, and are chronic debtors. So giving to the government is perceived as a poor way to give back.
I think if you look behind the scenes of most government action you will find evidence of hidden greed and powergrabs obscured by a veil of acting in the public welfare. I consider this worse than the blatant greed of corporations.
Good links. thanks. This has finally motivated me to look deeper into this field. Until now I have been content to basically "accept the consensus" because I had not looked at the data myself.
Regulating money is one of the things it exists to do and is one of its proper functions
I think we have found the crux of the matter. I disagree. This is certainly a role government's have seen fit to take upon themselves, especially in times requiring large deficit spending (i.e. war), and also to inflate indicators of economic activity (to increase the popularity of politicians). However, I do not see this as a proper function of government. I guess I see the government's ideal role as promoting the general welfare of a society. It is possible that a government could manage the currency supply in a way that promotes the general welfare, but this is a powerful tool that can be used for good or bad. There are also many ways a government can mismanage the currency supply leading to various negative outcomes. A few examples I see in the US today include: income inequality, debt-fueled bubbles in various sectors of the economy, artificially causing people to consume at an unsustainable rate, etc. In practice the latter appears to be much more common, so I think it is better for a government to not have this tool.
I would note that, central banking or not, as soon as banks are treated differently than other businesses (e.g., government sanctioned bank holidays), this tool has been handed over and the value of the currency is now partially backed by military and police power.
I'd say first of all it is likely to remain a good store of value, whether due to superstition or prettiness, or whatever. Although this value may drop during times of chaos, it will be deemed likely by many people to recover once stability is restored (a self-fulfilling prophecy?) Although gold is more difficult to store than paper, it is much easier to store than the other two examples you give, and is non-perishable. It also has the added advantage of being difficult to generate, thus limiting the extent to which the supply can be manipulated by the powerful. This is the primary advantage of gold over fiat or a complex basket of goods. While people may accept altering the value of a dollar in terms of the wieght of gold, they are unlikely to accept altering the definition of a gram or ounce.
I agree that it is a relatively useless substance. The lack of alternative uses contributes to its usefulness in storing value. However, I would not count on it to be valuable in times of chaos.
Sorry for not being clearer,,,, Scenario: I take a funny photo of a dog and show it to you, then the next day you see the same dog in the same spot and take a similar picture of it doing the same funny thing... 1) Have you infringed on my copyright under the current law? 2) Should that be considered infringement? How would someone determine the answer to the second question? What is the purpose of copyright law? Once a law is in place how should it be interpreted, does the law remains useful under the interpretation chosen? These are the issues we were discussing.
To recap, the OP made a normative claim that photo's are "barely copyright-able":
Apples and oranges. As pointed out below by someone else, photos are barely copyright-able at all, because they're simply a recording of something.
The next poster claimed that they should be copyright-able due to the amount of work that can go into getting a good photo.(also normative)
Just because the medium requires a click at the end does not suggest that any less work went into the photo than a comparable painting.
I enter the discussion to make my (normative) claim that I have doubts that any art should be copyright-able, but at the very the least the argument used by the poster above is faulty.
You would do it anyway because you enjoy it. If not you, someone like you but retired could probably figure out the same thing. To me, at least, the correct argument is that copycats profiting off your work that you shared freely is bs.
Someone responded to me, who makes his claim that copyrights are valuable. Another normative claim.
Just because the US has decided to allow Mickey Fucking Mouse to be copyrighted until the eventual heat death of the universe doesn't mean that the whole idea of copyright is wrong.
I repeat my response to the photographers claim that hard work meant that photos should be protected by copyright, and again question the usefulness of copyright law.
Just because something takes alot of effort doesn't mean it is valuable to society. Many artists are intrinsically motivated to do their thing, I don't see why anyone would want to corporatize art.
Then you ask:
What does what you write have to do with the topic on hand? Copyright law does not depend on the intent or desire of the creator of a specific piece of art. If photography is an art, it's an art. It doesn't matter whether "society" values it or not. That's completely irrelevant.
You are the only one in this thread talking about legal technicalities (my question #1, above), the rest of us were discussing question #2, so it is actually your post that is irrelevant here. Still I would welcome any insight regarding the legal technicalities here.
I never said everything should be shared freely. I just said his argument is crappy. Just because something takes alot of effort doesn't mean it is valuable to society. Many artists are intrinsically motivated to do their thing, I don't see why anyone would want to corporatize art.
The government will grow to the maximum size tolerated by its citizens. If taxes are an issue, it will just borrow what it can't tax. Then the central bank will print money to pay the debts, thereby indirectly taxing the common person via inflation. Banks and bailout-receiving corps don't have to pay this inflation tax, contributing to ever increasing concentration of wealth. We could also consider credit/debit card fees as an extra tax on every purchase, and you can see that altering the tax code will not stop what is happening. The "middle class" will end up paying the same.
Slashdot Mirror
You are confused.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
Very good analogies.
Oh my god you've repeated this twice now. People buying something after trying it for free has nothing to do with the broken window fallacy.
Broken window fallacy is not the same as people buying your stuff after downloading it first. Where do you people come from?
I do.
That's dumb, then there will just be corporations of corporations, etc. All that would be is an obstacle for people to waste effort people getting around.
I don't know if you could call taking advantage of crappy laws "capitalism". I see what you're saying though, maybe capitalistic?
The plants around Chernobyl adapted... Heat shock proteins are there for a reason. It is probably far cheaper (energetically) to adapt to warmer temperatures than colder.
I don't follow...
I would say the "tea party", Republican, (also some OWS) argument is similarly a bit more nuanced than portrayed. It isn't that the wealthy shouldn't give something back to society. It is that governments are commonly corrupt, make inefficient economic decisions, and are chronic debtors. So giving to the government is perceived as a poor way to give back.
I think if you look behind the scenes of most government action you will find evidence of hidden greed and powergrabs obscured by a veil of acting in the public welfare. I consider this worse than the blatant greed of corporations.
What is the right way?
Good links. thanks. This has finally motivated me to look deeper into this field. Until now I have been content to basically "accept the consensus" because I had not looked at the data myself.
I think we have found the crux of the matter. I disagree. This is certainly a role government's have seen fit to take upon themselves, especially in times requiring large deficit spending (i.e. war), and also to inflate indicators of economic activity (to increase the popularity of politicians). However, I do not see this as a proper function of government. I guess I see the government's ideal role as promoting the general welfare of a society. It is possible that a government could manage the currency supply in a way that promotes the general welfare, but this is a powerful tool that can be used for good or bad. There are also many ways a government can mismanage the currency supply leading to various negative outcomes. A few examples I see in the US today include: income inequality, debt-fueled bubbles in various sectors of the economy, artificially causing people to consume at an unsustainable rate, etc. In practice the latter appears to be much more common, so I think it is better for a government to not have this tool.
I would note that, central banking or not, as soon as banks are treated differently than other businesses (e.g., government sanctioned bank holidays), this tool has been handed over and the value of the currency is now partially backed by military and police power.
I'd say first of all it is likely to remain a good store of value, whether due to superstition or prettiness, or whatever. Although this value may drop during times of chaos, it will be deemed likely by many people to recover once stability is restored (a self-fulfilling prophecy?) Although gold is more difficult to store than paper, it is much easier to store than the other two examples you give, and is non-perishable. It also has the added advantage of being difficult to generate, thus limiting the extent to which the supply can be manipulated by the powerful. This is the primary advantage of gold over fiat or a complex basket of goods. While people may accept altering the value of a dollar in terms of the wieght of gold, they are unlikely to accept altering the definition of a gram or ounce.
I agree that it is a relatively useless substance. The lack of alternative uses contributes to its usefulness in storing value. However, I would not count on it to be valuable in times of chaos.
Well... I'm glad thats done with.
No, those laws currently need to be consistent with the constitution. If there is a conflict the constitution is supposed to win.
Sorry for not being clearer,,,,
Scenario: I take a funny photo of a dog and show it to you, then the next day you see the same dog in the same spot and take a similar picture of it doing the same funny thing...
1) Have you infringed on my copyright under the current law?
2) Should that be considered infringement?
How would someone determine the answer to the second question? What is the purpose of copyright law? Once a law is in place how should it be interpreted, does the law remains useful under the interpretation chosen? These are the issues we were discussing.
To recap, the OP made a normative claim that photo's are "barely copyright-able":
The next poster claimed that they should be copyright-able due to the amount of work that can go into getting a good photo.(also normative)
I enter the discussion to make my (normative) claim that I have doubts that any art should be copyright-able, but at the very the least the argument used by the poster above is faulty.
Someone responded to me, who makes his claim that copyrights are valuable. Another normative claim.
I repeat my response to the photographers claim that hard work meant that photos should be protected by copyright, and again question the usefulness of copyright law.
Then you ask:
You are the only one in this thread talking about legal technicalities (my question #1, above), the rest of us were discussing question #2, so it is actually your post that is irrelevant here. Still I would welcome any insight regarding the legal technicalities here.
I heard the surplus was a lie. It was social security money moving around.
I never said everything should be shared freely. I just said his argument is crappy. Just because something takes alot of effort doesn't mean it is valuable to society. Many artists are intrinsically motivated to do their thing, I don't see why anyone would want to corporatize art.
No, but I make art as a hobby. Also, all my friends who went to art school end up hating it and doing something else.
Well... here is a dumb argument against that: "If the constitution is perfect then why do we need amendments?"
Romney is the worst possible solution to all your problems.
That is exactly what happens when democrats argue against Ron Paul, except they link to Think Progress, etc. It is really annoying.
Here is my understanding:
The government will grow to the maximum size tolerated by its citizens. If taxes are an issue, it will just borrow what it can't tax. Then the central bank will print money to pay the debts, thereby indirectly taxing the common person via inflation. Banks and bailout-receiving corps don't have to pay this inflation tax, contributing to ever increasing concentration of wealth. We could also consider credit/debit card fees as an extra tax on every purchase, and you can see that altering the tax code will not stop what is happening. The "middle class" will end up paying the same.